The Cold Facts
It has served as a diversion for quite some time, but folks are finally catching on to one of the many hoaxes that charlatans have been feeding us. This particular one – the global warming hoax – is running out of steam, thanks to hundreds of honest scientists like Dr. Ivar Giaever.
FOX News, believe it or not, just put out the following story, under the headline: “Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming”
“The global warming theory left him out in the cold,” the story began. “Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that ‘global warming is occurring.’
“The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
“Giaever does not agree – and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
“‘I resign from APS,’ Giaever wrote.
“Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that ‘the evidence is incontrovertible.’
“‘In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the protons changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?’ he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
“‘The claim … is that the temperature has changed from -288.0 to -288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this “warming period,”‘ his email message said.
“A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
“The use of the word ‘incontrovertible’ had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
“‘The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 of a degree Centigrade since the late 19th century.
“Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged ‘consensus’ regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to president Obama critical of his position on climate change.
“Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.
“The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe that it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was ‘not at all likely'” –
Professor Giaever is in good company. In our Vol. XXVII, Art. 34 commentary we provided the names of the 46 scientists who affixed their names to this following statement released on February 27, 1992 by the Science & Environmental Project:
“As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental and activist groups and certain political leaders. The so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United Sates and other industrialized nations. Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.
“A survey of atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer 0f 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.
“Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.
“Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.
“We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.” –